[Lillie_Steins]

Farmall, you have completely misunderstood the gist of my argument. We are living in the most dangerous of times and that is why the US must use its military power relentlessly and give no quarter to this deadly enemy. You also confuse a "benign power" with a weak power which is not the case.

If you care to visit Power Politics--http://power-politics1.blogspot.com you will see the essence of my stand against this mortal foe.

[LottiFurmann]

I don't need to allude to the possiblity of nukes. it is better to be explicit and remove doubt.

We should speak openly of destroying the prospective Caliphate with nukes in the manner we once discussed destroying Communist China and the Soviet Union.

Islam exists to destroy us, and its nation-states are acquiring nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel and attack Europe and the US. When the Jihadists launch or detonate a ground device, it should be understood that the response should be an all out strike against their societies.

That is exactly what kept the Communists from nuking us, the reasonable expectation that they would not survive the outcome. It should be understood that it is not an act of anger, but an option because we are determined to survive NO MATTER WHAT we have to do.

Public discussion should not route around the issue of the cultural war. It is our duty to bring it to the fore.

"If you have reliable intelligence that they are concentrated in a particular geographic location, that is where you can bomb them and kill them in the largest numbers."

Those locations are called "cities", because they constitute the base of support for all enemy functions. That is why it was legitimate to bomb Berlin.

[Ifroham4]

That's what usage doctrine is for. We didn't make a secret of our doctrine in the Cold War. That's really the point of a strategic gambit. It doesn't have to make direct rational sense. It doesn't have to be tit for tat, or fair, or proportional or any of those soft sussurating western liberal words. It has to be a threat, an order. It has to keep people awake at night wondering if their grandchildren are going to incinerate in a fireball. In fact that is exactly what Iran is doing to us. They are asserting a doctrine that says their response to us will be completely all out of proportion and will wreak destruction on us and ours absolutely out of line of whatever we do to them. If we don't respond in kind then we are playing into their gambit.

Similarly with Israel the era of the doctrine of the bomb in the basement is coming to an end. They will be forced and better served to expound a workable usage doctrine once the Iranians have a nuclear capability. A doctrine doesn't have to specifically state when and where. It has to elaborate on intended outcomes. If Iran (or xxxx) does xxxx then Israel will respond with zzzzz. I can think of maybe 6 or 7 different strategies employed in a doctrine for Israel to articulate vis a vis WMD. And none of them include neither admitting nor denying they have the capability in the first place. More importantly, a regional usage doctrine has to drag in other parties as well, particularly against an enemy with a strategic resource that everyone wants. Let's say for instance the Iranians decide to clear the Straits of Hormuz using a threat of nuking American troops in Iraq, or by striking at Tel Aviv. It's not as if this inconceivable in the history of middle east relations. An appropriate response might be to accept that gambit and have a stated response that the main Iranian oil port would be targeted in kind. You don't have to threaten to exterminate 10 million people. But it's entirely rational to say you will end 90% of their economic output. And so on....

[tgs]

"You spend your days talking about making people die. "

Your religion is trying to kill my culture, and its adherents are actually "making people die" based on religious affiliation instead of discussing it.

There is only one reply to that, and it isn't singing Kumbayah while surrendering. My readings of history and personal encounters with Holocaust survivors tend to make me just a bit negative about letting those who want me wiped out take over.

Jihadists are trying to erase modern civilization and replace it with religion. I do not owe that idea tolerance or respect. I do not owe its proponents anything, nor they me.

I want to disempower their ideology by any means necessary. They want to expand it by any means available.

"BTW, once you start dropping nukes, you should make sure that you kill us all. "

That's a silly assertion because "you" don't all matter, so it is illogical from any warfighting standpoint to do that. We didn't wipe out Germany after WWII, and there are still a few unrepentant Nazis about. They don't have sufficient political traction to be important. Once their National Socialist prophet was demonstrated by events to be incorrect, that was enough.

Being ruthless should be distinguished from being petty and vengeful. I don't advocate being petty or vengeful. It interferes with unemotional thinking.
All that is required is to irrevocably discredit the belief among the vast majority of surviving followers and, most importantly, potential adherents.

"And what about the Christian families of people like myself? Why they'll be simpathizers! Get them too! And what if someone simpathizes with them?"

Sympathy does not equate to fighting. Those who fight should be dealt with.

"Let's say for instance the Iranians decide to clear the Straits of Hormuz using a threat of nuking American troops in Iraq, or by striking at Tel Aviv. It's not as if this inconceivable in the history of middle east relations. An appropriate response might be to accept that gambit and have a stated response that the main Iranian oil port would be targeted in kind. You don't have to threaten to exterminate 10 million people. But it's entirely rational to say you will end 90% of their economic output. And so on...."

That is a reasonable beginning gambit, but instead of tit-for-tat I would advocate escalation. It could be STATED that their economy would be the target if they used a nuke, and then cherry-pick 'economic' targets for maximum additional damage.

Remember that mere battlefield and economic defeat can be shrugged off as Germany did after WWII. Israels neighbors also choose to rebound after each periodic war. They do it because they can.

For Israel, if Tel Aviv were struck, it would not do merely to hit one city in retaliation. Let's not forget that, not so long ago, destroying a city was not a big deal. We should not exaggerate the importance of a mere city to an enemy. Swapping a city of "martyrs" to hit Israel could very well look like (and be!) a bargain for them.

Israel is so small that it would do better to openly spell out a MAD scenario. Any nuclear attack on Israel should be met with erasure of the attacking country. Less than that is just an invite for Israels other neighbors to finish it off.

[PhillipHer]

Farmall, you have hit the nail on the head. Precisely, it's their simplicity that makes them fanatic adherents of Islam, and to believe in all the razzmatazz of Paradise and the 72 virgins. It's the only thing they possess in the squalor of their poverty. And while this fanaticism makes them strong, and most dangerous to Western Civilization, at the same time makes them weak. For if one inflicts a [B]"prototype of destruction"[B] upon one their towns (see, A Blueprint Of Victory In Iraq--http://power-politics1.blogspot.com), and simultaneously deprive them of their successes in the field of their operations, that will place a great doubt in their heart that after all Allah may not be on their side. And as you correctly point out to andak01, the remorseless military response of the US and its allies, will force them to "switch sides".